Usually the infringed party contacts the infringing party and allows them to correct the error, since mistakes happen. It's the polite, non-douchebag way to behave, particularly since the goal of the GPL is spreading code. In legal terms, it's called "good-faith".
Oracle, of course, is a douchebag, and as such does things the douchebag way.
Thus, Oracle gets slammed for being a douchebag.
It's like seeing a guy hit on your girlfriend, and instead of telling the guy she's spoken for, you sucker-punch him. You're a douchebag if you behave that way, plain and simple. That's how Oracle operates.
On the other hand, Google is only liable for infringement ONCE. The number of times you infringe doesn't matter, it's a per-work thing, not a per-infringement thing. Also, was each file individually registered with the Copyright Office? Copyright is automatic, and you can license without registering, but you cannot collect statutory damages without registering. In fact, registering the works doesn't even make continued infringement after registration liable to statutory damages.
In other words, about $30k per file is what Oracle can expect out of Google. If Oracle manages to get the handset manufacturers in on it (I can't see how they could, but lawyers are pretty creative) all it means is Google gets to split the cost of that $30k with the handset manufacturers - Oracle won't see an extra dime.
This is really pretty pathetic, and typical of Oracle. Instead of calling up Google and saying "WTF bro? You re-licensed my code without my permission! That's not cool!" and allowing Google to say "Oh snap! My bad! I'll fix it!", they decided to try to sucker-punch Google after walking out of a club late Saturday night.
Actually what would happen is EMI would get a one-time award of $10k (maybe $25k if it was clearly deliberate) for all instances of infringement for the work.
That wouldn't even pay the lawyers' salaries. Oracle is in the same situation, so they'd better hope Google willfully infringed on a whole lot of files (all of which need to be registered with the USCO to get any statutory damages at all) in order to break even.
even if that means having to remove access to previous revisions of the source tree.
That's not really an option, given the fact that most Android devices still use pre-2.3 versions of the OS.
I think the wisest option is exactly what they are doing: leave the old stuff alone, remove them from the new stuff, and wait for the injunction that may or may not ever come. Here's a hint - since the source is so "out there" already, it will probably never come.
I'd be surprised if these files were individually registered with the US Copyright Office, but I could be wrong. If they were registered as a group, distributing a portion of the files for testing purposes likely doesn't even qualify as copyright infringement.
Statutory damages can also go as high as $150,000 per infringement under the right circumstances, but the number of infringements don't matter. Only the number works infringed.
I'm not really sure what Oracle is going for here, are they really that hard up for cash that they'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to squeeze Google for $150k?
Fines/Damages/Fees/"Whatever your legal system calls it" usually depend on how often you copied it and what money you made from it.
Weather you intended to violate copyright or not factors in as well (though it has no bearing on guilt or innocence).
The range of damages for copyright violation is anywhere from 1$ to $150,000 per work infringed.
It also matters if they were registered with the US Copyright Office. Copyright is automatic, but you cannot claim statutory damages without registration. All that is left available to you are punative damages, and since Google clearly did not intend any harm, and since any distribution of the files was likely accidental, Oracle isn't likely to see very much money for their trouble.
It's also worth noting that damages are awarded per work, not per instance of infringement (i.e. if someone shares a song a million times it's only one case of infringement). Since any distribution by hardware manufacturers is only due to Google's initial distribution, the very worst Oracle could do is make them share the maximum $150k per work with Google. They can't get extra damages for each manufacturer.
This is an informative article about the current state of copyright statutory damages. The same author has a more in-depth "primer for non-lawyers" here.
This is really pretty pathetic. Even if 1,000 files were infringed on, the absolute maximum Oracle can get for all cases involving Android is $150 million. That's combined, not individually. Even the most egregious cases rarely elicit the maximum, so they're really probably looking about $50-60 million, tops.
Probably because it is in no way, shape, or form a CNC milling machine. How can it be a milling machine if it doesn't do any milling? Seriously, you should probably look up the word "milling". It might help. Printing is much more accurate in the sense of ink-jet printing, but extrusion would be the most correct term in most cases.
CNC might still apply, but I'm not totally sure it uses numerical control in the CNC sense.
I suppose you could start calling things they aren't if you really want to, but I've got to warn you, just about everybody is going to think you are an idiot. They'll be right too.
No, it's exactly the same thing. It just looks different because in mathematics you aren't partitioning a pie, you are partitioning a number.
For example, the number 3 has the following positive integer partitions:
3 2+1 1+1+1
You can also define your partition in a decimal fraction if you wanted, in which case you would have an almost infinite number of partitions. It's basically just breaking a number up into related (but not necessarily equal) portions. The relation is determined by the smallest allowed unit (in the example above, a positive integer). This is how any non-random form of partitioning, mathematical in nature or not, works.
I frankly have a very hard time believing that the data partitions created for statistical modeling are going to be created at random, so the algorithm in TFA can almost certainly apply.
Partitions are a very elementary mathematical principle and therefore have a very wide range of applications. The problem with calculating them has always been similar to prime numbers (another elementary principle with very broad applications). "Solving" the partition problem is like writing an algorithm that can reliably and precisely generate prime numbers. It's huge.
It's not that nobody ready it, it's that it wasn't that funny, and I am definitely a member of the target audience for the joke.
It got a "meh" from me, whereas the "Ono - Yoko - Apolo - Ohno" thread above produced a light chuckle.
Re:Didn't know there was a Comic Code
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You are missing the part where the self-censorship was coerced under threat of government censorship.
There were several large movements in the government to censor all media via government agencies similar to the FCC. In fact, one of the reasons the FCC has such broad powers over television and radio content is because the broadcast industry couldn't come up with a workable system similar to the MPAA or RIAA.
The MPAA, RIAA, and CCA were the various industries' attempts to avoid complete disaster in the form of government censorship. It is not like the industry leaders for these groups got together one day and said "Hey, you know what would be really great? If we set up an independent board to rate our movies for us so parents would know whether they want their kid to see our movie or not! Yeah! Wonderful idea! Lets all pitch in and help out!"
Rather, they got together and said "SHIT! We're gonna get fucked in the ass by the government if we don't do something! What if we set up an independent board of reviewers to rate the movies for us? Would that work? Maybe, lets try it."
They were coerced deals worked out between Congress and the various industries in order to avoid censorship laws that would completely destroy those insustries. They are about as voluntary as forcing a slave to put on his own shackles at gun point.
The death of the CCA does prove, however, that the industries have within their own power the means for escape. The gun is still pointed at movies and music though; comics were never targeted as hard as movies and music because they simply are not as popular. Books are rarely censored because it is a lot harder for a book to qualify as obscenity (one of the criteria is that it cannot have any redeeming social value - a hard thing to say about any literary work). Too people are simply not as interested in written smut as they are illustrated smut. Prior to the 60's, though, many important literary works were banned in the US due to isolated passages that could be considered obscene. Since the Supreme Court rulings required both a prurient theme throughout the work and no redeeming literary value, almost all books are back in.
It's funded by the publishers, but it is an external, independent entity, and the publishers have for years been slaves to it.
Just like the MPAA and RIAA ratings boards.
They subjected themselves to this form of censorship (one they had at least a modicum of influence over) to avoid government censorship. They were coerced by senators and congressmen and various executive agencies (like the FCC). It was the lesser of two evils. That does not mean it was not and is not still evil.
To make an analogy, my putting on a pair of handcuffs while you hold a gun to my head does not make me a willing participant of captivity.
The irony is if they had allowed government censorship they probably could have taken a page from Larry Flint's book and fought (and won) on constitutional grounds. American entertainment would be very different today if publishers had the balls to stand up for their constitutional rights.
The MPAA ratings board is a group of old "married" white women (supposedly parents with children living under roof, though most of them have no children in the house, and why is that the standard anyway?), so of of course tits are going to rate far higher than blood. I'm not being hyperbolic there either. It really is a bunch of old white women.
The ratings really are absolutely ridiculous. Besides being pretty inconsistent from one movie to the next, you can kill a million people rather graphically and still get a PG-13 rating, but show tits for more than about 3 seconds (or more than once) and it's a guaranteed R rating. You can even manage that R rating if you insinuate too much nudity, whether you actually show any tits or not.
Also, Seduction of the Innocent is a great way to find old smutty comics. Some really great ones in there.
Apparently your rose colored glasses made you completely miss the part where he mentioned Brazil and India are quickly rising in world power and the US doesn't mind in the slightest.
Know why? Their goals don't oppose ours. They are friendly, so we are friendly. On the world stage it's just friendly competition between the three.
So the countries who's goals are diametrically opposed to ours, we are in opposition to. Big surprise! The countries who's goes line up with ours we are friendly to. Big surprise!
Diplomacy succeeds when everybody shakes hands and agrees to do something, generally a compromise between the two positions, and then goes and does what they agreed to do.
A requirement for this is clearly that all sides involved must agree to the final outcome.
If all sides do not agree with the final outcome, diplomacy failed.
In the case of Iran, no agreement has been successfully reached. Therefore, diplomacy has thus far failed.
Does that help your understanding of how diplomacy can fail? It's really simple, but if you need further explanation I can see if I can break it down further for you.
There is no office product that has read/write support for ECMA-376 (the OOXML spec in the story) yet.
Office 2010 has read support for it (though what document it could read, I don't know, since nothing writes it yet), and writes the transitional ISO standard. SoftMaker 2010 and OO.org both import it, and SoftMaker can output the ISO transitional standard like Office 2010. I don't know if OO.org can do that yet.
Give it another year and all three will likely support it.
Small software companies don't make office software, and individuals definitely don't if they are interested in being at all relevant (seriously, SoftMaker is about as small as is capable of such a thing - office suites are huge and complicated). You could make a sweet text editor, but that's a far cry from a word processor.
This actually opens the market for the little guy, since an office suite focused on a single standard might be doable for a smallish company. And while OOXML isn't as open as ODF, it's open enough. Microsoft's "promise not to sue" is legally binding in most countries, so it's safe enough for companies to write software for it.
Seriously, why else do you think OO.org and SoftMaker support docx?
Not really, since MS Office is better than OO.org in just about every way (except for price, but hey that may change soon!) it makes sense that they would choose an MS based standard.
Too MS is going to spend more money pushing their standard (not necessarily greasing palms, but maybe) than Oracle. You can't win if you aren't even trying.
There aren't really any office products out there that are better than MS Office. If there were, people wouldn't use MS Office. OpenOffice.org isn't terrible, but it's still no where near as good as MS Office.
That's why they settled on an MS "open" (what a crock) standard. It's better, and better usually wins.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually the infringed party contacts the infringing party and allows them to correct the error, since mistakes happen. It's the polite, non-douchebag way to behave, particularly since the goal of the GPL is spreading code. In legal terms, it's called "good-faith".
Oracle, of course, is a douchebag, and as such does things the douchebag way.
Thus, Oracle gets slammed for being a douchebag.
It's like seeing a guy hit on your girlfriend, and instead of telling the guy she's spoken for, you sucker-punch him. You're a douchebag if you behave that way, plain and simple. That's how Oracle operates.
On the other hand, Google is only liable for infringement ONCE. The number of times you infringe doesn't matter, it's a per-work thing, not a per-infringement thing. Also, was each file individually registered with the Copyright Office? Copyright is automatic, and you can license without registering, but you cannot collect statutory damages without registering. In fact, registering the works doesn't even make continued infringement after registration liable to statutory damages.
In other words, about $30k per file is what Oracle can expect out of Google. If Oracle manages to get the handset manufacturers in on it (I can't see how they could, but lawyers are pretty creative) all it means is Google gets to split the cost of that $30k with the handset manufacturers - Oracle won't see an extra dime.
This is really pretty pathetic, and typical of Oracle. Instead of calling up Google and saying "WTF bro? You re-licensed my code without my permission! That's not cool!" and allowing Google to say "Oh snap! My bad! I'll fix it!", they decided to try to sucker-punch Google after walking out of a club late Saturday night.
Childish is what it is.
Actually what would happen is EMI would get a one-time award of $10k (maybe $25k if it was clearly deliberate) for all instances of infringement for the work.
That wouldn't even pay the lawyers' salaries. Oracle is in the same situation, so they'd better hope Google willfully infringed on a whole lot of files (all of which need to be registered with the USCO to get any statutory damages at all) in order to break even.
To be fair, most JVM's had similar issues with their default settings until recently.
Running Java apps used to be the bane of my existence. Now they just suck - a huge improvement. ;)
(In case you didn't notice, I'm not a fan of Java. It is ever so slowly improving, however, so maybe someday I'll like it. One can dream, right?)
even if that means having to remove access to previous revisions of the source tree.
That's not really an option, given the fact that most Android devices still use pre-2.3 versions of the OS.
I think the wisest option is exactly what they are doing: leave the old stuff alone, remove them from the new stuff, and wait for the injunction that may or may not ever come. Here's a hint - since the source is so "out there" already, it will probably never come.
I'd be surprised if these files were individually registered with the US Copyright Office, but I could be wrong. If they were registered as a group, distributing a portion of the files for testing purposes likely doesn't even qualify as copyright infringement.
Statutory damages can also go as high as $150,000 per infringement under the right circumstances, but the number of infringements don't matter. Only the number works infringed.
I'm not really sure what Oracle is going for here, are they really that hard up for cash that they'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to squeeze Google for $150k?
Fines/Damages/Fees/"Whatever your legal system calls it" usually depend on how often you copied it and what money you made from it.
Weather you intended to violate copyright or not factors in as well (though it has no bearing on guilt or innocence).
The range of damages for copyright violation is anywhere from 1$ to $150,000 per work infringed.
It also matters if they were registered with the US Copyright Office. Copyright is automatic, but you cannot claim statutory damages without registration. All that is left available to you are punative damages, and since Google clearly did not intend any harm, and since any distribution of the files was likely accidental, Oracle isn't likely to see very much money for their trouble.
It's also worth noting that damages are awarded per work, not per instance of infringement (i.e. if someone shares a song a million times it's only one case of infringement). Since any distribution by hardware manufacturers is only due to Google's initial distribution, the very worst Oracle could do is make them share the maximum $150k per work with Google. They can't get extra damages for each manufacturer.
This is an informative article about the current state of copyright statutory damages. The same author has a more in-depth "primer for non-lawyers" here.
This is really pretty pathetic. Even if 1,000 files were infringed on, the absolute maximum Oracle can get for all cases involving Android is $150 million. That's combined, not individually. Even the most egregious cases rarely elicit the maximum, so they're really probably looking about $50-60 million, tops.
I'll help you:
It was sarcasm.
Probably because it is in no way, shape, or form a CNC milling machine. How can it be a milling machine if it doesn't do any milling? Seriously, you should probably look up the word "milling". It might help. Printing is much more accurate in the sense of ink-jet printing, but extrusion would be the most correct term in most cases.
CNC might still apply, but I'm not totally sure it uses numerical control in the CNC sense.
I suppose you could start calling things they aren't if you really want to, but I've got to warn you, just about everybody is going to think you are an idiot. They'll be right too.
It started with earlier versions due to design considerations, and hasn't been changed.
I don't see how that is side-stepping the question. Sounds more like directly answering it, to me.
They were actually sold as hobby electronics kits. They were quite literally toys.
No, it's exactly the same thing. It just looks different because in mathematics you aren't partitioning a pie, you are partitioning a number.
For example, the number 3 has the following positive integer partitions:
3
2+1
1+1+1
You can also define your partition in a decimal fraction if you wanted, in which case you would have an almost infinite number of partitions. It's basically just breaking a number up into related (but not necessarily equal) portions. The relation is determined by the smallest allowed unit (in the example above, a positive integer). This is how any non-random form of partitioning, mathematical in nature or not, works.
I frankly have a very hard time believing that the data partitions created for statistical modeling are going to be created at random, so the algorithm in TFA can almost certainly apply.
Partitions are a very elementary mathematical principle and therefore have a very wide range of applications. The problem with calculating them has always been similar to prime numbers (another elementary principle with very broad applications). "Solving" the partition problem is like writing an algorithm that can reliably and precisely generate prime numbers. It's huge.
It's not that nobody ready it, it's that it wasn't that funny, and I am definitely a member of the target audience for the joke.
It got a "meh" from me, whereas the "Ono - Yoko - Apolo - Ohno" thread above produced a light chuckle.
You are missing the part where the self-censorship was coerced under threat of government censorship.
There were several large movements in the government to censor all media via government agencies similar to the FCC. In fact, one of the reasons the FCC has such broad powers over television and radio content is because the broadcast industry couldn't come up with a workable system similar to the MPAA or RIAA.
The MPAA, RIAA, and CCA were the various industries' attempts to avoid complete disaster in the form of government censorship. It is not like the industry leaders for these groups got together one day and said "Hey, you know what would be really great? If we set up an independent board to rate our movies for us so parents would know whether they want their kid to see our movie or not! Yeah! Wonderful idea! Lets all pitch in and help out!"
Rather, they got together and said "SHIT! We're gonna get fucked in the ass by the government if we don't do something! What if we set up an independent board of reviewers to rate the movies for us? Would that work? Maybe, lets try it."
They were coerced deals worked out between Congress and the various industries in order to avoid censorship laws that would completely destroy those insustries. They are about as voluntary as forcing a slave to put on his own shackles at gun point.
The death of the CCA does prove, however, that the industries have within their own power the means for escape. The gun is still pointed at movies and music though; comics were never targeted as hard as movies and music because they simply are not as popular. Books are rarely censored because it is a lot harder for a book to qualify as obscenity (one of the criteria is that it cannot have any redeeming social value - a hard thing to say about any literary work). Too people are simply not as interested in written smut as they are illustrated smut. Prior to the 60's, though, many important literary works were banned in the US due to isolated passages that could be considered obscene. Since the Supreme Court rulings required both a prurient theme throughout the work and no redeeming literary value, almost all books are back in.
It's funded by the publishers, but it is an external, independent entity, and the publishers have for years been slaves to it.
Just like the MPAA and RIAA ratings boards.
They subjected themselves to this form of censorship (one they had at least a modicum of influence over) to avoid government censorship. They were coerced by senators and congressmen and various executive agencies (like the FCC). It was the lesser of two evils. That does not mean it was not and is not still evil.
To make an analogy, my putting on a pair of handcuffs while you hold a gun to my head does not make me a willing participant of captivity.
The irony is if they had allowed government censorship they probably could have taken a page from Larry Flint's book and fought (and won) on constitutional grounds. American entertainment would be very different today if publishers had the balls to stand up for their constitutional rights.
Blood = G or PG
Very small amounts of it, and absolutely no gore.
The MPAA ratings board is a group of old "married" white women (supposedly parents with children living under roof, though most of them have no children in the house, and why is that the standard anyway?), so of of course tits are going to rate far higher than blood. I'm not being hyperbolic there either. It really is a bunch of old white women.
The ratings really are absolutely ridiculous. Besides being pretty inconsistent from one movie to the next, you can kill a million people rather graphically and still get a PG-13 rating, but show tits for more than about 3 seconds (or more than once) and it's a guaranteed R rating. You can even manage that R rating if you insinuate too much nudity, whether you actually show any tits or not.
Also, Seduction of the Innocent is a great way to find old smutty comics. Some really great ones in there.
Apparently your rose colored glasses made you completely miss the part where he mentioned Brazil and India are quickly rising in world power and the US doesn't mind in the slightest.
Know why? Their goals don't oppose ours. They are friendly, so we are friendly. On the world stage it's just friendly competition between the three.
So the countries who's goals are diametrically opposed to ours, we are in opposition to. Big surprise! The countries who's goes line up with ours we are friendly to. Big surprise!
Seriously, put down the coolaide and get a grip.
As if.
My toolkit is clearly biggest and most colorful.
Diplomacy succeeds when everybody shakes hands and agrees to do something, generally a compromise between the two positions, and then goes and does what they agreed to do.
A requirement for this is clearly that all sides involved must agree to the final outcome.
If all sides do not agree with the final outcome, diplomacy failed.
In the case of Iran, no agreement has been successfully reached. Therefore, diplomacy has thus far failed.
Does that help your understanding of how diplomacy can fail? It's really simple, but if you need further explanation I can see if I can break it down further for you.
You've clearly lost your sense of humor, then.
You should probably go find it, else you'll become a bitter, cynical human being. We don't want that, now, do we?
What does any of this have to do with liberty or safety?
It's the government's internal documentation standard for god's sake! Get a grip!
There is no office product that has read/write support for ECMA-376 (the OOXML spec in the story) yet.
Office 2010 has read support for it (though what document it could read, I don't know, since nothing writes it yet), and writes the transitional ISO standard. SoftMaker 2010 and OO.org both import it, and SoftMaker can output the ISO transitional standard like Office 2010. I don't know if OO.org can do that yet.
Give it another year and all three will likely support it.
Small software companies don't make office software, and individuals definitely don't if they are interested in being at all relevant (seriously, SoftMaker is about as small as is capable of such a thing - office suites are huge and complicated). You could make a sweet text editor, but that's a far cry from a word processor.
This actually opens the market for the little guy, since an office suite focused on a single standard might be doable for a smallish company. And while OOXML isn't as open as ODF, it's open enough. Microsoft's "promise not to sue" is legally binding in most countries, so it's safe enough for companies to write software for it.
Seriously, why else do you think OO.org and SoftMaker support docx?
Not really, since MS Office is better than OO.org in just about every way (except for price, but hey that may change soon!) it makes sense that they would choose an MS based standard.
Too MS is going to spend more money pushing their standard (not necessarily greasing palms, but maybe) than Oracle. You can't win if you aren't even trying.
There aren't really any office products out there that are better than MS Office. If there were, people wouldn't use MS Office. OpenOffice.org isn't terrible, but it's still no where near as good as MS Office.
That's why they settled on an MS "open" (what a crock) standard. It's better, and better usually wins.
The best advertisement a company can get is word of mouth.